Family Metaphors and Moral Intuitions

How Conservatives and Liberals Narrate Their Lives

Dan P McAdams*, Michelle Nebe, Emily Farber, Jennifer Daniels, Regina Lopata Logan, Brad Olson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

135 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This research examines life-narrative interviews obtained from 128 highly religious and politically active adults to test differences between political conservatives and liberals on (a) implicit family metaphors (G. Lakoff, 2002) and (b) moral intuitions (J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004). Content analysis of 12 key scenes in life stories showed that conservatives, as predicted, tended to depict authority figures as strict enforcers of moral rules and to identify lessons in self-discipline. By contrast, liberals were more likely to identify lessons learned regarding empathy and openness, even though (contrary to prediction) they were no more likely than conservatives to describe nurturant authority figures. Analysis of extended discourse on the development of religious faith and personal morality showed that conservatives emphasized moral intuitions regarding respect for social hierarchy, allegiance to in-groups, and the purity or sanctity of the self, whereas liberals invested more significance in moral intuitions regarding harm and fairness. The results are discussed in terms of the recent upsurge of interest among psychologists in political ideology and the value of using life-narrative methods and concepts to explore how politically active adults attempt to construct meaningful lives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)978-990
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of personality and social psychology
Volume95
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2008

Fingerprint

Intuition
Metaphor
intuition
metaphor
Social Hierarchy
Value of Life
narrative interview
political ideology
empathy
psychologist
morality
fairness
faith
respect
content analysis
Interviews
Psychology
narrative
discourse
Research

Keywords

  • conservatives
  • liberals
  • life stories
  • morality
  • political psychology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

McAdams, Dan P ; Nebe, Michelle ; Farber, Emily ; Daniels, Jennifer ; Logan, Regina Lopata ; Olson, Brad. / Family Metaphors and Moral Intuitions : How Conservatives and Liberals Narrate Their Lives. In: Journal of personality and social psychology. 2008 ; Vol. 95, No. 4. pp. 978-990.
@article{6d53396aa9894e559d958dc28e488df2,
title = "Family Metaphors and Moral Intuitions: How Conservatives and Liberals Narrate Their Lives",
abstract = "This research examines life-narrative interviews obtained from 128 highly religious and politically active adults to test differences between political conservatives and liberals on (a) implicit family metaphors (G. Lakoff, 2002) and (b) moral intuitions (J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004). Content analysis of 12 key scenes in life stories showed that conservatives, as predicted, tended to depict authority figures as strict enforcers of moral rules and to identify lessons in self-discipline. By contrast, liberals were more likely to identify lessons learned regarding empathy and openness, even though (contrary to prediction) they were no more likely than conservatives to describe nurturant authority figures. Analysis of extended discourse on the development of religious faith and personal morality showed that conservatives emphasized moral intuitions regarding respect for social hierarchy, allegiance to in-groups, and the purity or sanctity of the self, whereas liberals invested more significance in moral intuitions regarding harm and fairness. The results are discussed in terms of the recent upsurge of interest among psychologists in political ideology and the value of using life-narrative methods and concepts to explore how politically active adults attempt to construct meaningful lives.",
keywords = "conservatives, liberals, life stories, morality, political psychology",
author = "McAdams, {Dan P} and Michelle Nebe and Emily Farber and Jennifer Daniels and Logan, {Regina Lopata} and Brad Olson",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/a0012650",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "95",
pages = "978--990",
journal = "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology",
issn = "0022-3514",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "4",

}

Family Metaphors and Moral Intuitions : How Conservatives and Liberals Narrate Their Lives. / McAdams, Dan P; Nebe, Michelle; Farber, Emily; Daniels, Jennifer; Logan, Regina Lopata; Olson, Brad.

In: Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 95, No. 4, 01.10.2008, p. 978-990.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Family Metaphors and Moral Intuitions

T2 - How Conservatives and Liberals Narrate Their Lives

AU - McAdams, Dan P

AU - Nebe, Michelle

AU - Farber, Emily

AU - Daniels, Jennifer

AU - Logan, Regina Lopata

AU - Olson, Brad

PY - 2008/10/1

Y1 - 2008/10/1

N2 - This research examines life-narrative interviews obtained from 128 highly religious and politically active adults to test differences between political conservatives and liberals on (a) implicit family metaphors (G. Lakoff, 2002) and (b) moral intuitions (J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004). Content analysis of 12 key scenes in life stories showed that conservatives, as predicted, tended to depict authority figures as strict enforcers of moral rules and to identify lessons in self-discipline. By contrast, liberals were more likely to identify lessons learned regarding empathy and openness, even though (contrary to prediction) they were no more likely than conservatives to describe nurturant authority figures. Analysis of extended discourse on the development of religious faith and personal morality showed that conservatives emphasized moral intuitions regarding respect for social hierarchy, allegiance to in-groups, and the purity or sanctity of the self, whereas liberals invested more significance in moral intuitions regarding harm and fairness. The results are discussed in terms of the recent upsurge of interest among psychologists in political ideology and the value of using life-narrative methods and concepts to explore how politically active adults attempt to construct meaningful lives.

AB - This research examines life-narrative interviews obtained from 128 highly religious and politically active adults to test differences between political conservatives and liberals on (a) implicit family metaphors (G. Lakoff, 2002) and (b) moral intuitions (J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004). Content analysis of 12 key scenes in life stories showed that conservatives, as predicted, tended to depict authority figures as strict enforcers of moral rules and to identify lessons in self-discipline. By contrast, liberals were more likely to identify lessons learned regarding empathy and openness, even though (contrary to prediction) they were no more likely than conservatives to describe nurturant authority figures. Analysis of extended discourse on the development of religious faith and personal morality showed that conservatives emphasized moral intuitions regarding respect for social hierarchy, allegiance to in-groups, and the purity or sanctity of the self, whereas liberals invested more significance in moral intuitions regarding harm and fairness. The results are discussed in terms of the recent upsurge of interest among psychologists in political ideology and the value of using life-narrative methods and concepts to explore how politically active adults attempt to construct meaningful lives.

KW - conservatives

KW - liberals

KW - life stories

KW - morality

KW - political psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=54949138378&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=54949138378&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0012650

DO - 10.1037/a0012650

M3 - Article

VL - 95

SP - 978

EP - 990

JO - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

SN - 0022-3514

IS - 4

ER -